Appeal No. 2005-0999
Application No. 09/939,356
while the meaning of claim language may be established by
reviewing intrinsic evidence such as the written description and
prosecution history, as well as dictionaries and treatises, it
must be borne in mind that “in any event, the ordinary meaning
must be determined from the standpoint of a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant art”, citing Zelinski vs. Brunswick Corp.,
185 F.3d 1311, 1316, 51 USPQ2d 1590, 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1999),
(Teleflex at 1380). Accordingly, rather than ignore the patent
cited by the examiner as extrinsic evidence, as urged by
appellants, we must fully consider such evidence in determining
the ordinary meaning of “mechanically fixed” to a person of
ordinary skill in the art of attaching heat sinks to electrically
components. Hence, since appellants do not contest the
examiner’s objective evidence of prior art patents that the
phrase “mechanically fixed” includes soldering and adhesive
bonding, we find that both Takahashi and Pavlovic describe the
claimed mechanical fixing within the meaning of § 102.
Appellants also contend that the soldering and bonding of
Takahashi and Pavlovic respectively preclude the surfaces of the
solderable elements from being “contiguous” with the bottom
surface of the mounting lands. Appellants maintain that the
dictionary definition of “contiguous” requires touching.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007